Ninth Circuit Allows Border Patrol to Resume Stops in California

Ninth Circuit overturned a ban, letting Border Patrol resume immigration stops in California.

In January 2025, U.S. Border Patrol initiated 'Operation Return to Sender' in Kern County, California, arresting roughly 80 people, mostly from Latino backgrounds. This operation involved detaining individuals far from the border, raising civil rights concerns.

In response, the American Civil Liberties Union and United Farm Workers filed a federal lawsuit in February 2025 against the Department of Homeland Security and Border Patrol. They claimed the operation violated constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantees. Their suit focused on allegations of racial profiling and unlawful arrests, detailed in their press release.

In April 2025, U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston issued a preliminary injunction preventing Border Patrol from making stops or arrests in California's Eastern District without reasonable suspicion. 'Reasonable suspicion' is a legal standard requiring specific and articulable facts suggesting criminal activity to justify such stops. The injunction aimed to protect residents from racial profiling and unlawful detention, as explained in the ACLU's court release.

Despite the injunction, Border Patrol conducted a July 2025 raid in Sacramento, leading to further allegations of unconstitutional stops. This ongoing conflict culminated on August 24, 2026, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the preliminary injunction. This ruling permits Border Patrol to resume immigration stops statewide without the previously required suspicion threshold (reporting by Courthouse News Service).

Legal experts warn this decision raises critical questions about balancing enforcement with constitutional safeguards. Ajay Krishnan of Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP commented: "Border Patrol traveled 300 miles from the border to round up people based on skin color — which is itself unacceptable," highlighting concerns about racial profiling. Meanwhile, Homeland Security spokesman Tricia McLaughlin said that the injunction "undermined the will of the American people," underscoring the government's position on immigration enforcement authority.

This case exemplifies ongoing tensions in immigration law, particularly concerning how agencies comply with Fourth and Fifth Amendment standards. Legal practitioners should watch for further litigation and policy shifts affecting enforcement practices, compliance strategies, and civil rights advocacy in this area.

Yes, but: While the Ninth Circuit ruling allows Border Patrol more operational freedom, it may increase legal challenges over constitutional rights violations, keeping the debate and litigation active.

What's next: Legal experts anticipate further lawsuits contesting Border Patrol practices and possible appeals to the Supreme Court over constitutional enforcement standards.